The question, “When is it OK to kill?”

The question, “When is it OK to kill?”, makes me linger. I bookmark, stay on this piece longer than necessary because of a reluctance to answer the question. The question both provocative and thought provoking,I hesitate. I contemplate knowing that to leave it unanswered, I can always come back to it. And so I do.
If one repeats his conclusions to some premise long enough, I know, by experience, the child will believe it. Unfortunately many adults are stuck; stuck in that child, still lingering their; voicing a conclusion, giving it to you in a neat little package, as though their belief in their postulation, makes it real to you,as well; expected that you buy their argument, even if Anecdotal.
Now, to take one’s time, think deeply and at length. I become the judge and the jury. When is it OK to kill some one else’s child. When is it acceptable to feel compensated, that is, by the killing of another’s child.
There are four types, of evidence:
Statistical Evidence Every time you use numbers to support a main point, you’re relying on statistical evidence to carry your argument.
Testimonial Evidence used to prove a point,confirm that you are credible, as to your viewpoint, by eyewitness. one having experience as to point you believe to be true. The testimony supports your point.
Anecdotal Evidence is evidence that is based on a person’s observations of the world. It can actually be very useful for disproving generalizations because all you need is one example that contradicts a claim; must be used in conjunction with statistical data. Like, more blacks are on welfare than work, is anecdotal, unproved.
Analogical Evidence is looking at similarities between one item to another should be strong enough to give credibility to your research. This evidence type can be used to persuade, is a comparison of certain similarities between things which are otherwise unlike. Here the argument can begin When you try to link two things that aren’t similar enough to be linked, you’ve done more than just abuse the power of an analogy; you’ve committed a logical fallacy[/i>. This fallacy is called a “weak analogy.” False Analogy
exp, You can either like or dislike Obama, but compare him to a man who organized the deaths of millions of people as he “purged” his country of dissenters? Wow. ][blockquote>
The question then, “When is it OK to kill?”
Casualties of the Iraq War
Opinion Research Business survey show’s 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict between March 2003 to August 2007
Benghazi Overall deaths
In the end, according to the numbers presented, a total of 14,572 to 18,873 deaths have been reported, of which some have not been independently confirmed.
35,000 people in 4 1/2 years in drug War. Some 60,000 people have died in Mexico. 418,000 Americans died fighting in WW2.
Homeless addicts, crack babies, drive-by-shootings, gangs, burglaries, robberies, muggings, black-on-black youth violence. Where did this scourge come from?Reagan Administration admits delivering the product Crack cocaine to Los Angles subsequently announced a new War on Drugs, the 1986 bombing of Libya, amid the revelation of the Iran–Contra affair.
In order for an argument to be sound all of its premises must be true. Often, different people come to different conclusions because they are starting with different premises. So examining all the premises of each argument is a good place to start.
fallacies
Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, (i.e. “John is a jerk.” is not a fallacy. “John is wrong because he is a jerk.” is a logical fallacy.)
Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.
Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim.
Argument from final Consequences
Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves.
Those sentenced to death have often, like Lockett, been convicted of heinous, nearly unspeakable crimes. But is state-sponsored eye-for-an-eye justice truly a mark of a civilized society? How do we not, as a culture, descend to the same depravity of the person who takes a life — or multiple lives — when, as citizens of a state or country, we, in turn, take the murderer’s life? Do our haphazard attempts to rid the world of evil imbue us with it?
]
Botched Executions- Research14 FEBRUARY 2010 action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Blogs|
This writer finds that No evidence was introduced at the trial to prove that Clayton Locket was at the scene. His attorney offered no defines at trial. Those who said what happened claimed they were allowed to leave. They revealed provocative evidence that they claim happened out of their sight; and know many details not to have participated. In conclusion
Obama says he found inmate Clayton Lockett’s execution Tuesday “deeply troubling.”
After Oklahoma’s botched execution, “I’m asking Eric Holder to review the death penalty”
“Racial bias. Uneven application of the death penalty. Situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence – all these I think do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied,” he said.
Constitutionality of Death Penalty Exasperates the objectification inherent in reducing the black man to his cock In his last words, Botched Executions- Research 14 FEBRUARY 2010 Demps said,
Like a trophy, Clayton Lockett’s body including his exploded groin is on it’s way to Texas, Now proudly owned by rick Perry whose bible states that :
Romans Chapter 12
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Deuteronomy 5:17 – Thou shalt not kill.
Galatians 5:14 – For all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s